Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2007
[Indication and approach of cochlear implantation with common cavity].
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Daoxing, Zhang Yankun, Tian Hao
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To discuss the indication and approach of cochlear implantation with common cavity inner ear malformation.
METHOD: Through imaging examination preoperatively for profound sensorineural hearing loss patients, we found 6 cases with common cavity inner ear malformation, in which cochlear, vestibule and lateral semicircular canal formed a big cavity. Among these cases, five had residual hearing, in the others, residual hearing was not detected.
RESULT: Among these cases with common cavity, 5 cases with residual hearing were treated with cochlear implantation, in 3 cases we selected round window approach, in the other 2 cases, we implanted the electrodes through the joint of the common cavity and posterior semicircular canal. Postoperatively, All these 5 patients have auditory response with cochlear implantation. The patient without residual hearing was not given cochlear implantation.
CONCLUSION: In patients with common cavity inner malformation, those who have residual hearing have indication for cochlear implantation, but it must be emphasized that their effect may not be as good as patients without inner ear malformation. In those patients without residual hearing, cochlear implantation should better not be performed.
METHOD: Through imaging examination preoperatively for profound sensorineural hearing loss patients, we found 6 cases with common cavity inner ear malformation, in which cochlear, vestibule and lateral semicircular canal formed a big cavity. Among these cases, five had residual hearing, in the others, residual hearing was not detected.
RESULT: Among these cases with common cavity, 5 cases with residual hearing were treated with cochlear implantation, in 3 cases we selected round window approach, in the other 2 cases, we implanted the electrodes through the joint of the common cavity and posterior semicircular canal. Postoperatively, All these 5 patients have auditory response with cochlear implantation. The patient without residual hearing was not given cochlear implantation.
CONCLUSION: In patients with common cavity inner malformation, those who have residual hearing have indication for cochlear implantation, but it must be emphasized that their effect may not be as good as patients without inner ear malformation. In those patients without residual hearing, cochlear implantation should better not be performed.